Well, how does this work then with only 4 or 2 cores? Don't you have the same issues? Or do you mean you cannot take apart these things and devide over different cores? How much cores would you see would suit a gaming station best then?

The more threads you divide tasks into the more chance you have for inefficiencies or issues, which is one of the main reasons a lot of programs don't utilize many threads. And to be honest, with many games you don't need more than a couple of full-time threads and then a few threads for things like loading or decompressing of assets. But that's only if they maintain the status quo, if games are going to do awesome new stuff like make much more use of AI or physics, they're going to need the horsepower for it, and hopefully that's what Microsoft realizes. I imagine they need a few cores for things like the built-in Kinect, and maybe for other new features yet unknown.

The more threads you divide tasks into the more chance you have for inefficiencies or issues, which is one of the main reasons a lot of programs don't utilize many threads. And to be honest, with many games you don't need more than a couple of full-time threads and then a few threads for things like loading or decompressing of assets. But that's only if they maintain the status quo, if games are going to do awesome new stuff like make much more use of AI or physics, they're going to need the horsepower for it, and hopefully that's what Microsoft realizes. I imagine they need a few cores for things like the built-in Kinect, and maybe for other new features yet unknown.

This. I think when it comes to releasing games for the PC, the most that they can do is slap on some extra post processing and maybe higher resolution textures. The AI on the vast majority of today's games is simply atrocious. If we could get some movement on that front enemies would be challenging because of their intelligent decisions rather than sheer numbers.

The more threads you divide tasks into the more chance you have for inefficiencies or issues, which is one of the main reasons a lot of programs don't utilize many threads. And to be honest, with many games you don't need more than a couple of full-time threads and then a few threads for things like loading or decompressing of assets. But that's only if they maintain the status quo, if games are going to do awesome new stuff like make much more use of AI or physics, they're going to need the horsepower for it, and hopefully that's what Microsoft realizes. I imagine they need a few cores for things like the built-in Kinect, and maybe for other new features yet unknown.

So... if you had the chance to choose. How many cores / threads would you ideally want to program for?

And can you tell me: if the architecture is the same. Do more cores at a lower clock create the same heat as less cores at a higher clock? Would the amount of cores help in the heat problem-part?

So... if you had the chance to choose. How many cores / threads would you ideally want to program for?
And can you tell me: if the architecture is the same. Do more cores at a lower clock create the same heat as less cores at a higher clock? Would the amount of cores help in the heat problem-part?

6-8 threads would be plenty for just about any game, but chances are the Xbox will reserve a few cores for itself (for the OS, kinect, etc).

I would imagine more cores would generate less heat because they would be less likely to be utilized. But if a 16-core CPU was at full load, compared to a 1-core CPU, I'm not sure which would produce more or less heat. But considering the 360 has 3 cores and 6 threads, I don't see it as unreasonable that the next Xbox has 16 threads at a similar power usage as the 360.Edited by lordikon - 4/13/12 at 5:52am

Originally Posted by "|)3\/
[/-\|\|+" url="/t/1241330/cvg-next-xbox-to-boast-ridiculously-powerful-16-core-cpu/220_20#post_16968091"]But they'll use the wrong solder/thermal compound, consequently starting thousands of house fires around the world.
Also, like it's predecessor, you'll have to buy one every six months.

More cores are the only way forward for improving CPUs. The reason CPU manufacturers don't just make super fast single cores is because they've hit a wall. The "moar cores" joke is actually quite misleading. We wouldn't be able to cool/power/manufacture a super fast single core and that's why the industry has been forced to go with incremental improvements along with rapidly increasing core counts.

It's been taking a while for OSes and applications to catch up because big changes like this take years to affect the entire market.